Texas still seeing attempts to limit evolution in school textbooks

As a Christian I think trying to push God as "creator" in a public school science class is misguided. Science specifically relates to observable facts, God is spirit and therefore not observable (under a microscope that is).

While I do believe God reveals Himself through nature(see below), I don't believe Christians ought to be trying to force that revelation upon anyone.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse".

I could go on about how the triune nature of man (body,soul,spirit) is an image of the Godhead (Father, Son,Holy Spirit), but to those who don't believe in God this is just plain non-sense.

So please fellow Christians, stop trying to "prove" God to people and just preach the Gospel. After all the bible does say:

"The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned."

Poor Techwiz24. It seems like trying to argue against public opinion on evolution just gets you derided. I thought that Ars commenters might be above simply dismissal of another argument without talking about the facts but that doesn't appear to be true.

Pehaps an Ars editor could do a piece on Creationism and explain why they think it's wrong rather than assume it is? Perhaps a better piece would be on why they think Evolution is correct?

Prior to arguing for something, there is a necessary need for the existence of evidence supporting it. There is no scientific evidence for Creationism, in part, because it's not a science.

You can't argue from a position of "no evidence".

Evolution is "correct" because it has been verified, thousands of times.

Maybe science will lead to the discovery of an intelligent designer in some far distant future. Or, maybe, a multitude of intelligent designers.

To say that we, or the universe, may be the result of intelligent design is a valid question worthy of investigation using scientific methods. However, it is unlikely to be held as valid to say that that an intelligent designer exists because the idea is logical, even wondrous.

That the idea is logical and merits further investigation should be cause enough for scientists with creationist beliefs to use scientific method to begin to uncover the truth, as is being done by those that believe in evolution, conditions, and cause and effect giving rise to adaption.

It would seem reasonable to assume that if scientific method proved the reality that the universe has been designed, scientists would be as overjoyed as if evolution had been proven to be the reality.

There is also the possibility that evolution is by design. The idea that individual organisms, or creatures, are each created by separate and unique designs is a very human-centric notion. We still think of designing specific objects. What's not to say that perhaps only the building blocks were designed? Nothing, except due processes is needed to confirm that thought or belief - at least if we want to truly know it.

Though, the evidence that supports evolution over unimaginably long periods of time and change is substantial and growing larger every day. Which is probably why it is the reigning champion in most of the world's classrooms now and foreseeable future.

Sorry, that's not how science works. YOU have to prove Creationism true. Evolution has already proven itself correct over the past one hundred years or so; Ars needn't re-teach it. Those who choose Evolution need do nothing because the argument is already made and settled, except for the cranks who keep trying to push religion into science classrooms.

This isn't science (or, more accurately, the scientific method). Science doesn't ever really PROVE anything to be true (at least, not in most cases). The scientific method makes observations, comes up with theories, and comes up with experiments that would test the theory. Results that agree with the theory don't PROVE it, they just fail to DISPROVE it. If the results disagree with the theory, the theory is wrong and it needs to be investigated further.

That's the thing about the scientific method in the purist sense: It never claims to know for certain. The rigorous process is in sharp contrast with religion, where "faith" is bandied about for things that aren't explained or are claimed to be "un-knowable."

As someone with a thorough background and a degree in physics, I have a strong belief in the scientific method and the process it represents. This does not mean I specifically DISBELIEVE in God or "a god," but what it does mean is that I won't accept handwaving or "you need faith" as an explanation. There are many things that science cannot yet answer (there's a big gap between the big bang and life on earth, where complexity increases by many of orders of magnitude), but I figure given time many of the pieces will be clarified. I will NEVER accept "it's too complicated for humans to know, therefore rely on faith" as an explanation, I mean the Romans actually believed the sun was carried across the sky in a chariot for gods (God's?) sake.

The really cool thing is that evolutions random events over long periods of time will occur wheather you beleive in them or not. On the other hand if everyone stopped beleiving in religion it would go away.

We do not need mythology. If we keep on paths like this, we will have no scientists in 50 years. I open open to scientific dispute not claims of fact based on books written 2,000 years ago. (By the way, I know it was 2,000 years ago because of carbon dating).

There is a need for spirituality, and certain religions fill that need for many people. The two should not mix, but religion is not going to go away because it does answer questions science cannot (who are we? What should we be? What is our purpose in existing? etc).

The New Testament dates back to about 2000 years; the earliest copies date to around 150 AD. The Old Testament is much older than that. If you're going to make claims, do try to get your facts straight.

The Old Testament (because apparently screw the people who actually wrote the damn books) is only from about 600-550 BCE. Considering it is allegedly covering some 4,000 years, or all of existence up till its formal writing, it isn't that old either.

The Old Testament was written down from oral tradition. Even at 2600 years, that is still much older than the 2000 you originally claimed. You over generalized. Get over it.

I didn't make the original statement. I was pointing out you over generalized.

I wonder how long it's going to take for a class action lawsuit against the Texas State Education Board to materialize?

I honestly don't really care what they do to their own kids at this point, but they're going to impact the overall science education of the rest of the country through sheer bulk and that...that is a crime.

Poor Techwiz24. It seems like trying to argue against public opinion on evolution just gets you derided. I thought that Ars commenters might be above simply dismissal of another argument without talking about the facts but that doesn't appear to be true.

Pehaps an Ars editor could do a piece on Creationism and explain why they think it's wrong rather than assume it is? Perhaps a better piece would be on why they think Evolution is correct?

Edited to correct techwiz24's name.

Creationism isn't testable or falsifiable. Therefore it is not science.

Evolution isn't testable or falsifiable. Therefore, by your definition, it is not science.And please, before replying with another reference to evolving viruses, see techwiz24's earlier post on the difference between evolution and Evolution.

The publishers have always looked to Texas when they write text books. The state board selects the books to be used state wide. That is a lot of books, and profit. No publisher wants to get a bad review in Texas. In most states the local school board and staff selects the books.

I'm waiting for a student to apply 'critical thinking' to the problem and decide that evolution makes sense and that 'intelligent design' is hogwash and make a detailed case for their conclusion. If they get a bad grade because they reached the wrong answer it will really hit the fan.

No, I don't really. I think it's obvious now as to what side I align myself with. The issue is you (or more appropriately scientists in general) refuse to examine any evidence towards creationism. The way I see it, I find it extremely hard to believe that this world could be created by accident. I find evidence of intelligent design everywhere, from the basic biological systems and chemical reactions to the interactions of animals and the advanced nature of the human race. Additionally, I'm curious, how do you explain thought and consciousness?

Question, and I'm not trying to troll, I seriously want this answered:If it is extremely hard to believe that this world and life couldn't be formed by accident, how did the intelligent designer arise. Did someone did design him/her/it? If so, where did that designer come from? Eventually something had to just spring into existence didn't it? Occam's razor therefore points to our universe and life is the one that just popped into being, not one a few designers back.

Poor Techwiz24. It seems like trying to argue against public opinion on evolution just gets you derided. I thought that Ars commenters might be above simply dismissal of another argument without talking about the facts but that doesn't appear to be true.

Pehaps an Ars editor could do a piece on Creationism and explain why they think it's wrong rather than assume it is? Perhaps a better piece would be on why they think Evolution is correct?

Edited to correct techwiz24's name.

Creationism isn't testable or falsifiable. Therefore it is not science.

Evolution isn't testable or falsifiable. Therefore, by your definition, it is not science.And please, before replying with another reference to evolving viruses, see techwiz24's earlier post on the difference between evolution and Evolution.

Bullcrap!

Evolution has been tested it is falsifiable, and it has such a huge amount of evidence for it that only the WILLFULLY IGNORANT can deny it.

One example of how Evolution has been demonstrated is the discovery of whale precursor fossils. A prediction was made that if whales evolved from land mammals that we should find early ancestors of theirs in low wetlands regions from 50ish million years ago. Guess exactly where they were found!

As a Christian I think trying to push God as "creator" in a public school science class is misguided. Science specifically relates to observable facts, God is spirit and therefore not observable (under a microscope that is).

"While I do believe God reveals Himself through nature(see below), I don't believe Christians ought to be trying to force that revelation upon anyone."

"For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse".

I could go on about how the triune nature of man (body,soul,spirit) is an image of the Godhead (Father, Son,Holy Spirit), but to those who don't believe in God this is just plain non-sense.

So please fellow Christians, stop trying to "prove" God to people and just preach the Gospel. After all the bible does say:

"The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned."

Is your fear of death that persuasive? If you were immortal, what you would you make of what you just wrote? What do you envision?

Some orbiting white dude with a long white beard and a diaper? Since 'he' didn't come from the earth, ...what about an eyeball with tentacles attached? You don't know. It could happen! (Makes more sense then a meatball and spaghetti. ...Just a thought.)

Would you be so willing to worship of being that had a face that looked like the front side of a lobster?

I really wish Ars would stop doing articles like this. It isn't that they're writing articles about controversial subjects, or that they're expressing an opinion on said subjects. Its the blatantly insulting tone in the article toward the opinion they disagree with. To be honest, its about on the same level as some of the nasty comments in this thread. I suggest that they either stop publishing these kind of articles (which seems a shame), amend their tone and leave the "idiot bashing" to the comments, or do as someone suggested earlier in the thread: write a well researched article, giving all of the arguments and evidence in favor of ID/Creationism, and explain why each of them is wrong. I personally think that a well researched article wouldn't be able to explain all of them, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Though I'm not sure I would trust such an article from this author, since he apparently has nothing but contempt for anything remotely related to Creationism.

I really wish Ars would stop doing articles like this. It isn't that they're writing articles about controversial subjects, or that they're expressing an opinion on said subjects. Its the blatantly insulting tone in the article toward the opinion they disagree with. To be honest, its about on the same level as some of the nasty comments in this thread. I suggest that they either stop publishing these kind of articles (which seems a shame), amend their tone and leave the "idiot bashing" to the comments, or do as someone suggested earlier in the thread: write a well researched article, giving all of the arguments and evidence in favor of ID/Creationism, and explain why each of them is wrong. I personally think that a well researched article wouldn't be able to explain all of them, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Though I'm not sure I would trust such an article from this author, since he apparently has nothing but contempt for anything remotely related to Creationism.

Poor Techwiz24. It seems like trying to argue against public opinion on evolution just gets you derided. I thought that Ars commenters might be above simply dismissal of another argument without talking about the facts but that doesn't appear to be true.

Pehaps an Ars editor could do a piece on Creationism and explain why they think it's wrong rather than assume it is? Perhaps a better piece would be on why they think Evolution is correct?

Edited to correct techwiz24's name.

Creationism isn't testable or falsifiable. Therefore it is not science.

Evolution isn't testable or falsifiable. Therefore, by your definition, it is not science.And please, before replying with another reference to evolving viruses, see techwiz24's earlier post on the difference between evolution and Evolution.

Bullcrap!

Evolution has been tested it is falsifiable, and it has such a huge amount of evidence for it that only the WILLFULLY IGNORANT can deny it.

One example of how Evolution has been demonstrated is the discovery of whale precursor fossils. A prediction was made that if whales evolved from land mammals that we should find early ancestors of theirs in low wetlands regions from 50ish million years ago. Guess exactly where they were found!

Falsifiability is not measured by how much evidence there is in favor of something. It's measured by whether or not a piece of evidence hypothetically exists that could disprove it. There is nothing you can think of that would prove Creationism false (and I can't think of anything either), so you declare it to be unfalsifiable. I can't think of anything that would prove Evolution false, so I don't think it's falsifiable.

I really wish Ars would stop doing articles like this. It isn't that they're writing articles about controversial subjects, or that they're expressing an opinion on said subjects. Its the blatantly insulting tone in the article toward the opinion they disagree with. To be honest, its about on the same level as some of the nasty comments in this thread. I suggest that they either stop publishing these kind of articles (which seems a shame), amend their tone and leave the "idiot bashing" to the comments, or do as someone suggested earlier in the thread: write a well researched article, giving all of the arguments and evidence in favor of ID/Creationism, and explain why each of them is wrong. I personally think that a well researched article wouldn't be able to explain all of them, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Though I'm not sure I would trust such an article from this author, since he apparently has nothing but contempt for anything remotely related to Creationism.

Given as science actually has allowed a site like this to exist (gee, the internet, satellites, world mass comunications, accumulated knowledge steming from experimentation and proving stuff works) I have to say, any technology site would take their site if they are sensible.

I really wish Ars would stop doing articles like this. It isn't that they're writing articles about controversial subjects, or that they're expressing an opinion on said subjects. Its the blatantly insulting tone in the article toward the opinion they disagree with. To be honest, its about on the same level as some of the nasty comments in this thread. I suggest that they either stop publishing these kind of articles (which seems a shame), amend their tone and leave the "idiot bashing" to the comments, or do as someone suggested earlier in the thread: write a well researched article, giving all of the arguments and evidence in favor of ID/Creationism, and explain why each of them is wrong. I personally think that a well researched article wouldn't be able to explain all of them, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Though I'm not sure I would trust such an article from this author, since he apparently has nothing but contempt for anything remotely related to Creationism.

Well, which would it be? "Well researched"? Or "in favor of Creationism?" You can't have both.

Creationism is right up there with Flat-Earthism and Phrenology. If you want somebody in authority to tell you your beliefs are correct, go to church.

I am of the opinion that it is important for each and every person to make their own choice as to what to believe, given various evidences and observations. I feel that both view points should be taught as they are, as theories, regardless of the author of a textbook or the teacher.

You need to review the definition of theory. Evolution is a theory. Creationism is, at best, a hypothesis.

I don't think Creationism even goes that far. When you make a hypothesis, you are asking a question.

Creationists just flat out make a bold claim, then refuse to do any science to back it up. They just point to the Bible.

or do as someone suggested earlier in the thread: write a well researched article, giving all of the [...] evidence in favor of ID/Creationism

Happily! Here is my article:

List of evidence in favor of ID/Creationism:...

Refutation of above list:

My article is complete.

Well researched....As someone who has spent a lot of time studying both sides of the issue, I can think of various pieces of evidence in favor, I can also come up with refutations for them. I can also think of arguments on both sides that I don't have refutations for.

And now you're going to ask me to produce said evidence... I'll think about it. I'm a college student who doesn't have a whole lot of extra time to be researching stuff like this. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Atheists say that the Old Testament is hogwash. If we're going to "teach the controversy," then let's teach ALL the controversy! Let's put "It is biologically impossible for two individuals of every species of land animal to fit into a ship with the dimensions described" into a Texas textbook.

Falsifiability is not measured by how much evidence there is in favor of something. It's measured by whether or not a piece of evidence hypothetically exists that could disprove it. There is nothing you can think of that would prove Creationism false (and I can't think of anything either), so you declare it to be unfalsifiable. I can't think of anything that would prove Evolution false, so I don't think it's falsifiable.

"Falsifiability?"

This is a case of reductio ad absurdum. Is falsifiability even a word? There is no need to traipse out the converse of "provable" to try and drag things through the weeds.

Again, science is about making OBSERVATIONS and coming up with HYPOTHESES which are used to develop THEOREMS which can be used to develop TESTS which can DISPROVE the theorems. And the scientific method states essentially that if the results diverge from what the theorem says, then the theorem is WRONG.

The "theory of evolution" itself is extremely broad and cannot itself be "proved." HOWEVER, as part of the theorem there are many things that fall out that SHOULD be true if the theory of evolution is true. And, lo, science has had 150 years to test and research many of these things, and they largely agree with the theory itself. As I said in my previous post, it is a VERY BIG STRETCH to go from "some elements in a supernova" to "human" and tests have not been developed which confirm each step of the way. Given the scope of things, it could take 100 billion years to develop them all, and the earth will be long gone by then.

With all the new fossil fields opening up in China, it's only a matter of time until we find the fossilized skeleton of a tyrannosaurus that was killed by a flash flood right as it was in the process of transforming into a chicken.

Falsifiability is not measured by how much evidence there is in favor of something. It's measured by whether or not a piece of evidence hypothetically exists that could disprove it. There is nothing you can think of that would prove Creationism false (and I can't think of anything either), so you declare it to be unfalsifiable. I can't think of anything that would prove Evolution false, so I don't think it's falsifiable.

It would be contested by the presentation and observation of some other mechanism to explain the naturally-occurring difference in genetic information across subsequent generations of organisms.

Poor Techwiz24. It seems like trying to argue against public opinion on evolution just gets you derided. I thought that Ars commenters might be above simply dismissal of another argument without talking about the facts but that doesn't appear to be true.

Pehaps an Ars editor could do a piece on Creationism and explain why they think it's wrong rather than assume it is? Perhaps a better piece would be on why they think Evolution is correct?

Edited to correct techwiz24's name.

Creationism isn't testable or falsifiable. Therefore it is not science.

Evolution isn't testable or falsifiable. Therefore, by your definition, it is not science.And please, before replying with another reference to evolving viruses, see techwiz24's earlier post on the difference between evolution and Evolution.

That difference exists only in your own head. Science recognizes no such distinction. The E/evolution debate is an attempt to back away from an utterly bankrupt point that even the young Earth creationists can't deny, but to swap in macro-scale denial.

You don't get it.

There is no known mechanism by which life evolves the ability TO evolve. Either you deal with the fact that life begins at the single-cell level and progresses forward from there, or you argue that somehow evolution is constrained (by design) to only function on the small level, even though the rules that govern the function of the small level ARE EXACTLY THE SAME RULES that govern the eventual development of multicellular life.

Evolution offers a coherent framework for the process by which these steps happen. To accept only small-scale microbiology is to say: "Well, sure, all your steps work at the small scale, but not at the large scale."

"Why not?"

"Well, because they don't."

"Why not?"

"Because they can't."

"Why not?"

"Because God doesn't let them."

That's what your defense boils down to. We know species very much like modern species, but not EXACTLY like them existed in the past. We have multiple generations of very closely related species buried in rock strata. It's actually more logically coherent to believe that ALL fossils are somehow planted by Satan to tempt man than it is to argue that all those millions of species that were very-nearly-but-not-identical were somehow created statically, died out, and were replaced with...more species, created statically?

Forget about humans. Forget about everything *related* to humans. Are birds descended from dinosaurs? If they aren't, did God create, at every step, a dino-bird hybrid? Was the Great Designer hovering over the waters in the wake of the K-T extinction event, designing the DNA of the mammals that would emerge thereafter?

It's easy to deny macro-scale evolution if you only think about humans and apes. How do you explain everything *else?*

The separation of church and State has been controversial, in one side the government act like it should be but the church, God and religious thing has been always part of the government. One true sample is on the dollar printed text, in god we trust.

Fairly certain that's a remnant from the Cold War. The Soviets pushed for a complete void of religion. So with the red scare running high, the Americans used "In God We Trust" to create a polarizing effect in the country. If you trusted in god you were a definite American; if not you were obviously a good for nothing commie. "In God We Trust" was meant to make the grey Cold War become clearly Black and White. Personally, I don't care for if it's on currency or not. I just snicker at the site of the "In God We Trust" being on money with Jefferson's likeness; he's probably rolling in his grave as I type.

Evolution has been tested it is falsifiable, and it has such a huge amount of evidence for it that only the WILLFULLY IGNORANT can deny it.

One example of how Evolution has been demonstrated is the discovery of whale precursor fossils. A prediction was made that if whales evolved from land mammals that we should find early ancestors of theirs in low wetlands regions from 50ish million years ago. Guess exactly where they were found!

Falsifiability is not measured by how much evidence there is in favor of something. It's measured by whether or not a piece of evidence hypothetically exists that could disprove it. There is nothing you can think of that would prove Creationism false (and I can't think of anything either), so you declare it to be unfalsifiable. I can't think of anything that would prove Evolution false, so I don't think it's falsifiable.

Whaaaaaaaat?

You are clearly thinking not hard enough. Or rather you prove that you do not know upon which facts evolution is based.

There are plenty of *single* discoveries which would contribute to prove it false, and I can easily think of a few without effort:

- a human fossil in the stomach of a dinosaur within a Cretaceous rock layer (we found plenty of things in the stomach of dinosaurs, there are no reasons why they would not have eaten a human or two)- as already mentioned by another poster, a rabbit fossil in precambrian layers- a modern whale fossil anywhere in the fossil record before 50 million years- etc.

The validity of Paleontology and Evolution relies very strongly on the hypothesis that each layer of rock corresponds to a given time period. If this hypothesis is incorrect, Evolution is false and we will find fossils of all kinds in every kind of rock layer. But guess what?

Strangely enough, we *always* find the same kind of fossils exactly in the kind of layers where Paleology and Evolution predict they will be. A few exceptions to this rule, such as the ones listed above, would be enough for Evolution and Paleontology to crumble, but alas, the facts are persistent, those pesky rabbits insist on being buried in rock layers where there are no dinosaurs! May they all burn to hell!

Falsifiability is not measured by how much evidence there is in favor of something. It's measured by whether or not a piece of evidence hypothetically exists that could disprove it. There is nothing you can think of that would prove Creationism false (and I can't think of anything either), so you declare it to be unfalsifiable. I can't think of anything that would prove Evolution false, so I don't think it's falsifiable.

One person's failure of imagination doesn't mean that e/Evolution isn't falsifiable. We're lucky that there are people who can think of ways to show that it is falsifiable and then dedicate their lives to testing this "theory" and showing how much water it actually holds.

Falsifiability is not measured by how much evidence there is in favor of something. It's measured by whether or not a piece of evidence hypothetically exists that could disprove it. There is nothing you can think of that would prove Creationism false (and I can't think of anything either), so you declare it to be unfalsifiable. I can't think of anything that would prove Evolution false, so I don't think it's falsifiable.

"Falsifiability?"

This is a case of reductio ad absurdum. Is falsifiability even a word?

Not that I am going to defend Ziechman's ideas, it would do you well to learn a bit before you insert your foot into your mouth. When related to scientific discussions is often comes from Karl Popper'sfalsificationism which seeks to demarcate what is and what is not science.